Review by: ZoidbergOnTheRocks
I’m still working through my pile of Bruichladdich samples, so tonight we have a couple of Bruichladdich Black Art. These are older ones done by Jim McEwan, and as with the entire series any info about casks is secret. All we know is their age, and that they’re generally delicious.
Tasted on 3/3/2021, neat in a Glencairn.
Stock image is from Bruichladdich, retrieved on 2021/03/03.
Bruichladdich 22 Year Black Art 3.1
Distillery: Bruichladdich
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 48.7%, cask strength
Age: 22 years old. Distilled in 1989. Bottled on 04/09/2012.
Cask type: Bourbon / American Oak + Premium Wine Casks
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. One of 12,000 bottles.
Nose: rich dark fruits: raisins, cherries, figs, dates. Sea spray. Toffee, chocolate. Mild baking spices. Some melon lurking under there. A slightly earthy funk. Warm sand. With Water: wow, even more rich, sweet fruit, and more melon. A bit more maritime. Beautiful.
Taste: tons of those rich, dark fruits. Salty. Maritime. A bit mineral. Oily mouthfeel. Christmas cake spices build. Earthy funk. Walnuts. Sweet. With Water: more sweet fruit for sure, and the melon is coming through here now. Everything else is the same.
Finish: excellent dark fruits. Some nice maritime notes with sea spray and warm sand. More spice now, with cinnamon and allspice. The earthy funk lingers. Long. With Water: sweeter, with more fruit, including a bit of brighter melon. Deliciously maritime, spice is bigger. Somehow it seems to have gotten longer.
Summary: this is a big, bold, dark, rich dram full of dried dark fruits along with a brighter fruit note throughout. Big maritime and mineral notes of sea spray and warm sand. Nice spices. Some earthy, funky undertones. Overall very complex throughout; I feel like I get a little something new each time I come back to it. A few drops of water brings out even more fruit throughout, and the fruit, sea, and spice in the finish are long and perfectly balanced. A damn fine dram. Superb.
This reminds me a lot of the DNA 3 I reviewed last time. I like the DNA 3 a bit more, though: more mineral, more nuts, spice is more interesting. But I’m splitting hairs here.
Would I buy a bottle? yes, I’m sad I don’t have one of these.
Final Score: 95.
Bruichladdich 23 Year Black Art 4.1
Distillery: Bruichladdich
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 49.2%, cask strength
Age: 23 years old. Distilled in 1990. Bottled on 02/09/2016.
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered.
Nose: raisins and figs mingled with citrus. Seawater. Allspice. Honey. Ethanol. A bit shy. It’s a bit one-dimensional so far. Hrm. With Water: still shy. Less ethanol, brighter citrus w/ lime.
Taste: raisins and figs. Rather dry. Some citrus. Seawater. Moderate mouthfeel, not as oily as the 3.1. Honey sweetness. Some tobacco and leather. Mild spice. With Water: still quite dry. More citrus. More spice.
Finish: dark fruits first, again with a bit of citrus. Seawater. Tobacco. A bit hot. Warm baking spices. With Water: the heat is gone, with more citrus. A bit more spice, too.
Summary: this is very good, and I think it’s probably a shame that I’m tasting it right next to the 3.1. Different drams for sure. The nose is pretty shy and water didn’t really open it up much. An interesting mix of dark fruits and brighter citrus. Sweet honey notes, with some nice maritime notes, though it’s lacking the minerality of the 3.1. It was surprisingly hot initially, though water did help knock most of that down. Honestly, while it is great, it’s a bit simple, without much complexity. Not at all what I expected. I keep going back to it hoping to find something else, but I don’t. It feels like a bit of a miss in the series.
Would I buy a bottle? hmmm, I’m gonna say no. Other Black Arts are much better for me, and I think there’s many better offerings from Bruichladdich.
Final Score: 87.
Comparison
Order: 3.1 > 4.1
This is an easy pick. The 3.1 is more complex, richer, bigger, better balanced, etc. No contest.
A more interesting question is DNA 3 vs. 3.1, which I addressed a bit above. I’ve saved a bit of each sample, so I can put them side-by-side later, but my gut reaction is that I like the extra minerality and nuttiness of the DNA 3.
Scoring Legend:
- 95-100: As good as it gets. Jaw-dropping, eye-widening, unforgettable whisky.
- 90-94: Sublime, a personal favorite in its category.
- 85-89: Excellent, a standout dram.
- 80-84: Quite good. Quality stuff.
- 75-79: Decent whisky worth tasting.
- 70-74: Meh. It’s definitely drinkable, but it can do better.
- 60-69: Not so good. I might not turn down a glass if I needed a drink.
- 50-59: Save it for mixing.
- 0-49: Blech.
Malt Runners 